My experiences of physics sounds similar to AWOL's (although not so long ago ).They obviously can't teach you everything about everything but we seemed to cover a lot of stuff. They have to make it varied and teach a little bit about most things as people all have different interests and will go onto do different things at uni and beyond (even if they all do 'physics' at uni).

I'm not saying that the physics taught at school isn't good enough, I was merely pointing out that since it tends to stick to the classical view it's all straight forward and can be explained by fairly simple maths. Therefore a teacher with any science or maths background should have no problem in teaching a physics lesson and any teacher should be able to deliver the material since it's not particularly complicated nor does it involve opinion.

I really enjoyed physics at school, that's why I did it at a-level. If I didn't hate maths I'd have contemplated doing it at uni.

Sorry for the off-topic lead. I meant 50% teachers in my state in US that are actively teaching physics aren't certified to teach the subject. Not 50% of all teachers.

Yeah, not much recent stuff in intro college physics for non-physics majors but if you think of the following, which I cover, you'll find it is everywhere in electronics:

Simple harmonic oscillators - crystal oscillators, very tiny but very large modulus for MHz range oscillations that every device needsWaves and music - you name itBasic spring and capacitors - when micro-machined, it becomes accelerometersResistors and strain gaugesI also mention modern methods for measuring stuff, like pressure cell instead of u-tube barometer, thermistor instead of mercury thermometer (One student even stuck the wrong end of a mercury thermometer in the water since she's never seen one in her life LOL).The list goes go.

The most recent physics would be covered in the 3rd semesters for physics, some ECE and chemistry students, called modern physics. That one does have quantum stuff, photoelectric effect, semiconductors, x-ray electron and neutron diffraction, duality and relativity etc.

One student even stuck the wrong end of a mercury thermometer in the water since she's never seen one in her life LOL

Well that's one stupid student - I could have told you which end of a thermometer went in the water since I was about 4.

Lets face it though - teaching for modern technology is not up to scratch whatever subject you're talking about-In Product Design you are taught about 'smart materials' but many you could talk about or the applications they have - no teacher would have any idea and they wouldn't be covered in a text book. A lot of the information taught about things like that is also technically false but the people writing the book describe them as 'new materials' and as though they're mythical and nobody uses them.- In Engineering you could in theory do a project based on software or electronics/microcontrollers but heaven help you about marking as you can be sure your teacher will have no idea what you're doing or how to mark it (and the mark scheme isn't really set up for anything apart from metal bashing type projects).

- In physics you will be taught basics but nothing really (as liudr says) about modern technologies, how to use them, how they work etc. You might get taught about oscilloscopes in the broadest sense but you're unlikely to understand what they're actually used for (apart from thinking they're used in hospitals for displaying heartbeats).

- In maths you get taught an awful lot of theoretical calculations but due to the way the mark schemes are set up - in most schools you won't get told any applications for any of these, why you'd use them etc. because you don't need to be taught that - which puts a lot of people off (it put me off).

- In IT you get taught how to use MS office products (same with the so called 'IT Key Skills Levels') and maybe some limited visual programming in some proprietary software.

Even in the STEM (Science, Tech, Engineering & Maths) clubs in schools which I hear are pretty popular now, the type of things you might do depends completely on what teachers are into and what they know how to do (which in terms of helping people get an interest in modern technologies is pretty much nothing).

For that reason, I'm seriously thinking of doing something to try and help this sorry state of affairs - teaching kids what they should know to get into modern technologies - teaching them how to use and understand a computer, what electronics actually do, how theoretical physics and maths links into programming and software, what kinds of products can be made (what and where they are used) etc.

Well that's one stupid student - I could have told you which end of a thermometer went in the water since I was about 4.

Last year I was sharing a house with a teenager who had absolutely no idea that you could even put a plug on a cable, let alone how to actually wire one. This isn't particularly a fault since all devices now come with plugs attached but it does show that what you or I take for granted is often novel to other generations.

Quote

- In maths you get taught an awful lot of theoretical calculations but due to the way the mark schemes are set up - in most schools you won't get told any applications for any of these, why you'd use them etc. because you don't need to be taught that - which puts a lot of people off (it put me off).

Indeed. I hated maths at school and when I got to uni I was forced into a foundation maths course despite doing computer science course which included a maths for comp sci module. I was fine with discreet stuff and logic but couldn't be arsed with imaginary numbers and the like.

I now spend my working life managing data, including generating reports and statistics. Wish I'd paid more attention at school but doing stuff to lists of numbers was dull.

Quote

For that reason, I'm seriously thinking of doing something to try and help this sorry state of affairs - teaching kids what they should know to get into modern technologies - teaching them how to use and understand a computer, what electronics actually do, how theoretical physics and maths links into programming and software, what kinds of products can be made (what and where they are used) etc.

Hey the are great, they are the basic of electronics and lots of other stuff and dead easy.

Problem with schools is the national curriculum it is rubbish and is full of "facts" that are simply not true, like:-

One day is the time it takes the Earth to turn once on it's axis -- not true that is a sidereal day and is four minuets shorter than 24 hours.Human Growth Hormone is made using specially bread pigs -- not true, it's bacteria. My son had to have daily injections of it.Bricks are better for building houses with than stone -- Stupid southerner's idea I suppose, give me a stone house any day.

This was introduced by Thatcher who brow beat the teachers with lots of criticism and low pay, then introduced this simple rubbish so that you didn't have to be any good to teach it. At that point nearly all the good teachers left the profession and it has been rubbish ever since.

I was once at a conference of School Physics Teachers (giving them a talk) and one complained that A-level physics seemed to be designed just so that students could be surprised by Quantum Physics at University.

Well, I completely agree with you, Grumpy_Mike. Kids like me are just believing everything what teachers say. This year, one teacher was explaining dreams to us (I know much about lucid dreaming, dreams and their associated psychology) and he was talking about the 'rolling eye momevent', that 'recurs every other hour'. It's the rapid eye movement which recurs every 1.5 hours. Everybody, except for me believed this (I generally don't open my mouth during that certain teacher' lesson, he doesn't like me that much). Since then, I've been a lot more critical about what they tell us at school. I mean, how do we know it's all true?

I've once heard, that, during WOII, teachers at German colleges would show their students skulls, and 'scientically' proved that one of them, of which they said it was from a Jew, was less developed. All of the students believed this.

I had a physics lesson today, and now I realise just how true all of this is. We were doing an invstigation about how the legnth of a sicamore seed wing affects the time it takes to fall. I had to describe to my teacher how the lift was created over the wing. Surely it should be the other way round - the teacher telling the student not the student telling the teacher?

I had a physics lesson today, and now I realise just how true all of this is. We were doing an invstigation about how the legnth of a sicamore seed wing affects the time it takes to fall. I had to describe to my teacher how the lift was created over the wing. Surely it should be the other way round - the teacher telling the student not the student telling the teacher?

It feels soooo good to know you're smarter than them xDBut on the other side, it's a bit alarming: what if we learn all kind of things wrong? [/what-if stuff]

It feels soooo good to know you're smarter than them xDBut on the other side, it's a bit alarming: what if we learn all kind of things wrong? [/what-if stuff]

If we learn everything wrong, we will have a funner time in the future being able to re-figure everything out! Arduino is about problem solving, as is science. If you enjoy arduino stuff, it is a fair assumption that you enjoy science too, so you would enjoy re-discovering everything!

Well the best thing education can do for you is to make you challenge what is said to you. Maybe rubbish teachers are just a ploy to get you to challenge stuff. The thicker pupils will not challenge it and forget it anyway.Some people thing you have to have a good memory to do well in education but it is not true. The best people are lazy and don't bother remembering stuff but work it out from first principals every time.